ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
A Cross-Sectional Study of Online Survey Respondents' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Delirium.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Depiction of Delirium in Contemporary Medical Television Dramas: A Descriptive Content Analysis.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of intensive care nurses toward delirium: a multicenter cross-section study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelirium affects approximately a quarter of hospitalized adults and is associated with higher mortality, cognitive decline, and prolonged hospitalizations. Patient and caregiver education may improve outcomes. However, limited literature exists on the general public's current understanding of this condition.
objectiveTo assess knowledge and attitudes toward delirium via an online convenience sample.
designCross-sectional survey using Amazon's Mechanical Turk between October 2023 and January 2024.
participantsAdults 18 years old and older, living in the USA, and fluent in English. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed delirium knowledge using a 15-question knowledge assessment covering three categories (risk factors, symptoms, and management). We compared mean scores between knowledge categories using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to identify demographics associated with low delirium knowledge scores. KEY
resultsAmong 397 respondents, 52% were male, 67% were White, and the median age was 44.6 (IQR 36-52). Participants reported living in 43 states. Participants answered 59% (SD 14.8) of knowledge questions correctly; respondents performed highest within the risk factor category (74%, SD 19.6) and lowest in management (47%, SD 21.1), p = <0.01. Few knew that bedrest is not recommended for delirium and that symptoms do not develop gradually (18% and 25%, respectively). Most (83%) agreed that more patient and caregiver education on delirium is needed. In multivariate analysis, individuals with higher incomes were less likely to score in the lowest quartile compared to those earning under $50K (e.g., OR 0.60 for persons earning $50-100K, 95% CI 0.29-0.91). Finally, low self-confidence in delirium knowledge was not associated with low knowledge scores.
conclusionsRespondents had misconceptions about delirium that could be addressed in future educational initiatives, including the importance of early mobilization. Further work is needed to characterize what types of knowledge are valued by patients and caregivers and are critical to facilitating engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.